DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 11 of copending Application No. 18/523,932 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to a tournament game service using a non-fungible token with an NFT generation unit, registration processing unit, completion message transmission unit, and a payment processing unit. While the claims are not identical, since one set of prior art would be applicable to both applications, the inventions are not patentably distinct from each other as required.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the setting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the quantity of holding tickets" in lines 12 – 13 and 36 - 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the NFT" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the purchase request" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the calculated price" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electronic terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first game" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the level information of the first user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the amount of payment of cryptocurrency" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the setting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the number" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the quantity of holding tickets" in lines 13 - 14 and 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the NFT" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the purchase request" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the calculated price" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the electronic terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first game" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the level information of the first user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the amount of payment of cryptocurrency" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the setting" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the number" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the quantity of holding tickets" in lines 14 – 15 and 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the NFT" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the purchase request" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the calculated price" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable upon correction of the above-noted deficiencies and overcoming the double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching in the prior art, alone or in combination, of an invention as described by the claimed application.
While there are many examples of NFTs in the prior art, as well as general knowledge of blockchains and tournament game services, the Examiner is unable to find any teachings of a system that generates a first NFT including first user identification information as owner information when a new user registration request command is received from a first user, and additionally recording a first purchase quantity of tickets upon completion of payment processing in the first NFT registered in a blockchain network as information on a ticket holding quantity of the first user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley et al. teaches crafting of non-fungible tokens using pre-minted tokens.
Jakobsson et al. teaches a system for token management in augmented and virtual environments.
Bushnell et al. teaches a method for multi-player virtual hybrid wager-based and non-wager-based competitions.
Meyers et al. teaches generating player token NFTS via a blockchain-based distributed computer network based on player hierarchy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715